Ben Clemence, Annotation #8
Blue Vinyl
Word Count: 1183
Title: Blue Vinyl Director: Daniel B. Gold, Judith Helfand Released: 2002
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film investigates vinyl products, specifically siding for houses and its potential environmental and health impacts beyond what the typical consumer considers. On the house the siding is safe, unless the house catches on fire, in which case harmful toxins are released. The other part that most consumers do not consider is the production of the vinyl, turning it into useable products, and the disposal of it. The film starts to expose the industry and how they have covered up many of these safety and environmental concerns and insisting that vinyl is safe.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film is structured around following an investigative journalist around to find out more about vinyl. It begins with her family replacing the siding on their house with vinyl and then her trip to the industry and other places where she interviews experts, executives, and workers and their families. Throughout the narrative there was some scientific information but much of the film was focused more on the effects on a top level and how it affects humans. The emotional appeal is in the stories of families who have members that are permanently disabled or dead because of working in a vinyl factory. There is no compensation from the vinyl industry or admittance of unsafe practices so that they can make changes.
What sustainability problem does the film draw out?
The film draws out several sustainability problems, some that relate to vinyl specifically, but also some that applying to almost all issues surrounding sustainability. With vinyl there are many health and environmental concerns and they are hidden by the industry. In the production stages the workers are exposed to high levels of toxic materials and breathe in the vinyl dust leading to throat cancer. One worker that was in the film had to talk with a voice box places against his throat. There are also additional concerns about living in the area around a vinyl plant that is releasing these harmful chemicals into the air whether by accident or out of negligence. After the vinyl has passed its time for being useful it is thrown into a landfill where toxins are leached into the ground and then become part of the water table. The second issue the film addresses is the public’s unwillingness to change their ways, whether it is out of stubbornness or lack of empathy is unclear. The reporter’s father said that he would still use vinyl even after hearing her story. It’s almost as though the consumers like to avoid the issue and then once the product is in use, in this case vinyl, its viewed as there is nothing they can do and it would even be worse now to change.
What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part that I found most compelling was the interviews with the vinyl representatives and scientists. The first was sort of impromptu and consisted of her following them asking questions about how safe vinyl is. The vinyl representatives just kept insisting that vinyl was perfectly safe and that she had nothing to worry about. At some points they even seemed condescending to her and that it was silly to even ask these sorts of questions. The second interview was much more formal and structured to the point of almost being scripted it seemed. After some help from a coach of sorts on interview strategies, the journalist is able to go after one the chief scientists of the vinyl industry. The guy had 25 years of experience in the industry and the questions asked in the interview were all pre-screened by the vinyl company to make sure they were acceptable. There should not have to be this level of control unless you have something to hide.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film seemed to take the idea of a narrative to the extreme and strayed away from investigative journalism at several points. I would have liked to see the journalist be more professional in her investigation. This would have made the film more convincing in my mind.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses those who are unaware of the dangers of vinyl siding as well as those who are generally uninformed about general lifecycle analysis. This could also be a good film for those who are considering to side their house with vinyl to maybe reconsider their choice. Most of these consumers are not going to actively seek out the bad practices of the vinyl industry the same way the main character of this movie did.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There was some discussion of housing in California and alternative materials but I would have liked to see a quick discussion about why we see that split. What is it about the west coast that leads to them having almost no houses sided with vinyl while on the east coast it seems that most house nowadays are sided with vinyl. It could be that it is an issue of weather or location of the industry but maybe it is just that there is just really no explanation for this divide.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggests corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film does explore some alternative ways to side your house and talks with people out in California that have actually sided their house with these alternative materials. The other corrective action the film pushes is consumer awareness and responsibility. Consumers often blame companies for now being responsible as a whole but then continue to buy their products without any concern for what sort of effect there may be from the creation and disposal of that product.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
There was a quick discussion in the video about how in other countries the vinyl industry is being held accountable in court for some of its practices. The charges on them are very severe as well with some of them being charged with manslaughter. I tried to find some more information and came across this article which talked about the vinyl industry. They tell about how several workers are suing the industry after contracting an extremely rare form of cancer call angiosarcoma of the liver. The case revealed documentation that many of the companies were aware of these potential health impacts but did nothing to try to remedy the situation and instead tried to hide it.
References
Rosner, David, and Gerald Markowitz. "Response to Philip Scraton's Report on Deciet and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution." Response to Scraton. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Nov 2011. <www.deceitanddenial.org/reviews/Response_to_Scranton.pdf>.
Blue Vinyl
Word Count: 1183
Title: Blue Vinyl
Director: Daniel B. Gold, Judith Helfand
Released: 2002
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film investigates vinyl products, specifically siding for houses and its potential environmental and health impacts beyond what the typical consumer considers. On the house the siding is safe, unless the house catches on fire, in which case harmful toxins are released. The other part that most consumers do not consider is the production of the vinyl, turning it into useable products, and the disposal of it. The film starts to expose the industry and how they have covered up many of these safety and environmental concerns and insisting that vinyl is safe.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film is structured around following an investigative journalist around to find out more about vinyl. It begins with her family replacing the siding on their house with vinyl and then her trip to the industry and other places where she interviews experts, executives, and workers and their families. Throughout the narrative there was some scientific information but much of the film was focused more on the effects on a top level and how it affects humans. The emotional appeal is in the stories of families who have members that are permanently disabled or dead because of working in a vinyl factory. There is no compensation from the vinyl industry or admittance of unsafe practices so that they can make changes.
What sustainability problem does the film draw out?
The film draws out several sustainability problems, some that relate to vinyl specifically, but also some that applying to almost all issues surrounding sustainability. With vinyl there are many health and environmental concerns and they are hidden by the industry. In the production stages the workers are exposed to high levels of toxic materials and breathe in the vinyl dust leading to throat cancer. One worker that was in the film had to talk with a voice box places against his throat. There are also additional concerns about living in the area around a vinyl plant that is releasing these harmful chemicals into the air whether by accident or out of negligence. After the vinyl has passed its time for being useful it is thrown into a landfill where toxins are leached into the ground and then become part of the water table. The second issue the film addresses is the public’s unwillingness to change their ways, whether it is out of stubbornness or lack of empathy is unclear. The reporter’s father said that he would still use vinyl even after hearing her story. It’s almost as though the consumers like to avoid the issue and then once the product is in use, in this case vinyl, its viewed as there is nothing they can do and it would even be worse now to change.
What parts of the film do you find more persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part that I found most compelling was the interviews with the vinyl representatives and scientists. The first was sort of impromptu and consisted of her following them asking questions about how safe vinyl is. The vinyl representatives just kept insisting that vinyl was perfectly safe and that she had nothing to worry about. At some points they even seemed condescending to her and that it was silly to even ask these sorts of questions. The second interview was much more formal and structured to the point of almost being scripted it seemed. After some help from a coach of sorts on interview strategies, the journalist is able to go after one the chief scientists of the vinyl industry. The guy had 25 years of experience in the industry and the questions asked in the interview were all pre-screened by the vinyl company to make sure they were acceptable. There should not have to be this level of control unless you have something to hide.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film seemed to take the idea of a narrative to the extreme and strayed away from investigative journalism at several points. I would have liked to see the journalist be more professional in her investigation. This would have made the film more convincing in my mind.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses those who are unaware of the dangers of vinyl siding as well as those who are generally uninformed about general lifecycle analysis. This could also be a good film for those who are considering to side their house with vinyl to maybe reconsider their choice. Most of these consumers are not going to actively seek out the bad practices of the vinyl industry the same way the main character of this movie did.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There was some discussion of housing in California and alternative materials but I would have liked to see a quick discussion about why we see that split. What is it about the west coast that leads to them having almost no houses sided with vinyl while on the east coast it seems that most house nowadays are sided with vinyl. It could be that it is an issue of weather or location of the industry but maybe it is just that there is just really no explanation for this divide.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggests corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film does explore some alternative ways to side your house and talks with people out in California that have actually sided their house with these alternative materials. The other corrective action the film pushes is consumer awareness and responsibility. Consumers often blame companies for now being responsible as a whole but then continue to buy their products without any concern for what sort of effect there may be from the creation and disposal of that product.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
There was a quick discussion in the video about how in other countries the vinyl industry is being held accountable in court for some of its practices. The charges on them are very severe as well with some of them being charged with manslaughter. I tried to find some more information and came across this article which talked about the vinyl industry. They tell about how several workers are suing the industry after contracting an extremely rare form of cancer call angiosarcoma of the liver. The case revealed documentation that many of the companies were aware of these potential health impacts but did nothing to try to remedy the situation and instead tried to hide it.
References
Rosner, David, and Gerald Markowitz. "Response to Philip Scraton's Report on Deciet and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution." Response to Scraton. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Nov 2011. <www.deceitanddenial.org/reviews/Response_to_Scranton.pdf>.